Originally posted by: zerocool84
I was a Supervisor for the Home Depot up until 2 weeks ago ... o yea i know all the Home Depot secrets. When i got fired 2 weeks ago, all i got was $1600 not $210 million, ugg that makes me sad.
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Playmaker
He isn't being rewarded for "mediocre performance." He is receiving his due based on a contract signed years ago that was implicitly affirmed by HD's (primarily) institutional owners and, therefore, you.
In the current climate of executive management, given our pseudo-capitalist economy and the involvement of firms like WLRK in the process, contracts such as these, heavily laden with equity based incentive plans, are the only way companies attract top talent. Whether or not they remain top talent when they arrive in the C-level suite should be dealt with in said contact.
If you don't like it, make sure Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, et al. has your money elsewhere.
This reactionary infuriation over a contract after the fact is just proles being proles, and that's why they will remain so.
Please, this is exactly the reason why there is something wrong. These people aren't "top talent", Nardelli didn't even have any relevant experience to the HD job when he came from GE, yet his buddies arraigned for him to have a stellar contract with little to no performance incentives, more give-aways than anything.
The same situation happened with Grasso and such. It's amazing that average workers have to have pretty strict appraisals to get their bonus', yet these guys get a blank check. Regardless of crappy performance or good performance and the only way they get it is because they have the cards stacked in their favor.
Merely accepting it only creates and extends the problem. Amazingly there are multitudes of companies that have CEOs that don't do this type of crap and they are doing pretty dang well.
Finally, I like how you break down morally concious individuals into "proles" and assume that they won't go anywhere. It's a pretty comforting thought pattern to say that anybody who disagrees with you or actually has a moral compass is a loser that isn't nearly as skilled as you are. I am sure that's what Lay/Skilling, Koslowski, Ebbers, and the Rigas' thought too. They were the same types of people that these guys are, greedy, misguided, and idiotic.
First off, your subjective morality has no place in this debate.
His social ability is part of his business acumen. You're ignorant if you believe there isn't a significant social aspect to bonuses/raises for average employees, which is what you appear to insinuate in your pots. One's ability to network has and always will be a major force in moving through the business world. It's an in-born human trait and trying to change it is a fool's errand.
And my comment on proles has nothing to do with morality. I refer to the individuals that find the current executive compensation practices deplorable, yet do nothing more than complain on message board. Not talented enough to play the game and too lazy to attempt to change it, that's what they are.
Funny considering I am not that way. I play the game quite well and am moving up quickly.
Yet, what can anybody do about it? Unless there is legislation demanding that a majority of stock not be proxy voted then nothing will change. There are several other things you can do to limit the problem, but none of them are things individual people can do.
As far as my subjective morality, anybody who realized how horribly the situation is stacked and sees the injustice of it realizes that there are massive problems. However, some try to deny that to justify their own greed. Perhaps it isn't the problem of proles as much a problem of scum bags.
Heh, I'm sure you play the game quite well, but that comment seethes of insecurity and leads one to believe your opinions are based primarily on jealousy.
With this topic in the media so often, it's safe to assume virtually every voter is aware of it. If there was such widespread detest for the current exec comp practices, it would become a hot-button issue on the campaign trail, which is hasn't for either party beyond the impotent lip service of a few pols. And before you bring up all the conspiracy theories of both parties being in bed with corporations, don't forget that re-election trumps all. The majority of this country doesn't want to see each aspect of our economy legislated to hell and controlled by Capitol Hill. I wonder what your political views are given your inclination to legislate, legislate, legislate.
Finally, don't forget the institutional investors that own these companies. If they believed exec compensation was an issue for the general public they would adjust their investing strategies accordingly or risk losing their customer base. And they haven't. Even on this board there seem to be more apathetic towards the issue than enraged about it.
Originally posted by: her209
Are these contracts made availble to the public or at least shareholders at the time of signing? I think it would serve as a great warning sign to investors when they see "separation" clauses like the Home Depot one.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: her209
Are these contracts made availble to the public or at least shareholders at the time of signing? I think it would serve as a great warning sign to investors when they see "separation" clauses like the Home Depot one.
Again, how many times do I have to say this?
66% of HD stock is held by institutions. Those same institutions belong to large investment banks or fund corporations that are in the same circles as the CEOs. Fund managers don't give a rats arse in most cases and investors are powerless if 2/3 of the company's stock is held by institutions voting proxy.
Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Originally posted by: zerocool84
I was a Supervisor for the Home Depot up until 2 weeks ago ... o yea i know all the Home Depot secrets. When i got fired 2 weeks ago, all i got was $1600 not $210 million, ugg that makes me sad.
They fired you right before Christmas!
Spill those secrets!
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You see nothing in my motives other than your own insecurity, ignorance, and lack of morality on this issue. Don't try to impose your own views on me as you have no personal knowledge of my life.
2. I am normally "free market" in most cases. I detest government influence on the markets, except where egregious corruption takes place. Considering I see many regulations (FAS 140, 133, Regulation AB, FD...etc) in the financial area I acknowledge that they have added a lot of transparency. Thus, I do not abhor many types of regulation on the markets where needed.
Once you consider that many rich people are also very powerful, you begin to realize that taking them on using morality isn't always that successful. Langone himself is launching a personal crusade against Spitzer after Spitzer started the whole uproar over Langones butt-buddy Grasso after Grasso's paycheck swelled stupidly.
It's amazing that somehow regulations preventing this silliness hasn't come about isn't it?
Why would institutional investors go against the establishment? Perhaps if all people stopped buying mutual funds, investments in pensions, and insurance companies, and invested on their own, they might feel an impact. However, the same grease that moves the gears of CEOs moves the gears of the fund managers. Meanwhile, people like you downplay it, making it that much more "acceptable" in the publics eyes.
Don't try to belittle me with saying that I am envious, a "prole", insecure, ignorant, or a conspiracy theorist. If you can't fight this with logic and must resort to hyperbole and pathetic strawman or personal attacks just give up. You are outmatched.
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
It's crap like this that pisses me off. So I spend my hard earned money at a store and the people that stock the shelves and help me by directly interfacing with the customer get jack squat pay wise yet the CEO in another state that has only been in the store to do PR stuff gets his salary plus Millions more to say I quit. Last time I said I quit the only thing I got was a new job.
Well, Im sure the former CEO of Home Depot was a little more qualified than you to run the company and IM sure his position held a bit more responsibility than those store stockers at your local home depot.
210 Million is quite a lot of money, but it irritates me when I hear people b!tching about executive salaries and compensation. They get paid that much for a reason. They're running publicly traded companies, and that comes with significantly more stress than the cashier at home Depot.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
It's crap like this that pisses me off. So I spend my hard earned money at a store and the people that stock the shelves and help me by directly interfacing with the customer get jack squat pay wise yet the CEO in another state that has only been in the store to do PR stuff gets his salary plus Millions more to say I quit. Last time I said I quit the only thing I got was a new job.
Well, Im sure the former CEO of Home Depot was a little more qualified than you to run the company and IM sure his position held a bit more responsibility than those store stockers at your local home depot.
210 Million is quite a lot of money, but it irritates me when I hear people b!tching about executive salaries and compensation. They get paid that much for a reason. They're running publicly traded companies, and that comes with significantly more stress than the cashier at home Depot.
spoken like someone who's never worked as a cashier. its the kind of never ending drudgery pressure and standing till your back hurts that definetly qualifies as stressful. multiply that stress by 2000 times and you'll be more than dead.
"But Home Depot's stock has been flat at about $40 a share throughout his tenure, much to the displeasure of shareholders and Wall Street analysts. "
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/070103a/
and all i know is around here in the bay area a few years ago there were no lowes as far as i know, only home depots. now i live near atleast 3 lowes. a few years ago homedepot or osh were the only places i would do that kind of shopping, now i go to lowes as much or more than home depot. lowes is eating up their market share and its all under his watch.
and as for stress again, a cashier doesn't have a golden parachute. the fact that even if you screw up royally you will end up set for life kind of destroys that whole stress thing. at that point it isn't stress, your just playing games for points.
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
good for him. I'm sure he worked and studied hard for many years to reach this leadership position. He deserves to reap what he has sown. (apparently that concept doesn't make sense to the OP. The OP has likely not accomplished or achieved much of anything and is bitter and full of resentment that he will never see .1% of this money in his lifetime)
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
good for him. I'm sure he worked and studied hard for many years to reach this leadership position. He deserves to reap what he has sown. (apparently that concept doesn't make sense to the OP. The OP has likely not accomplished or achieved much of anything and is bitter and full of resentment that he will never see .1% of this money in his lifetime)
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Unfortunately, I feel that Capitol Hill is just as bad and as corrupt. All a part of the same crew...pocketed bureaucrats ...although your arguments are articulate, there is credence to so called "good ole boys"
Litany - Money Moguls -> influence legislation like no other -> influence media -> overcompensation -> are tight with one another, the only way to intervene is to corral them all...this is federal, state and even local in terms of government and big corporate relations...
think of drug companies, petroleum, retail, automotive, etc....and their influence, (due to the exorbitant amount of money and power they have accrued...and is it for the benefit of anyone else but themselves? NO...are there negative aspects that "trickle down" and affect those not in that circle....yes!
wake up, stand together, shout loudly and be heard...
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Here comes dmcowen in 5....4.....3.....
Originally posted by: michaels
Don't hate.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You see nothing in my motives other than your own insecurity, ignorance, and lack of morality on this issue. Don't try to impose your own views on me as you have no personal knowledge of my life.
2. I am normally "free market" in most cases. I detest government influence on the markets, except where egregious corruption takes place. Considering I see many regulations (FAS 140, 133, Regulation AB, FD...etc) in the financial area I acknowledge that they have added a lot of transparency. Thus, I do not abhor many types of regulation on the markets where needed.
Once you consider that many rich people are also very powerful, you begin to realize that taking them on using morality isn't always that successful. Langone himself is launching a personal crusade against Spitzer after Spitzer started the whole uproar over Langones butt-buddy Grasso after Grasso's paycheck swelled stupidly.
It's amazing that somehow regulations preventing this silliness hasn't come about isn't it?
Why would institutional investors go against the establishment? Perhaps if all people stopped buying mutual funds, investments in pensions, and insurance companies, and invested on their own, they might feel an impact. However, the same grease that moves the gears of CEOs moves the gears of the fund managers. Meanwhile, people like you downplay it, making it that much more "acceptable" in the publics eyes.
Don't try to belittle me with saying that I am envious, a "prole", insecure, ignorant, or a conspiracy theorist. If you can't fight this with logic and must resort to hyperbole and pathetic strawman or personal attacks just give up. You are outmatched.
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Unfortunately, I feel that Capitol Hill is just as bad and as corrupt. All a part of the same crew...pocketed bureaucrats ...although your arguments are articulate, there is credence to so called "good ole boys"
Litany - Money Moguls -> influence legislation like no other -> influence media -> overcompensation -> are tight with one another, the only way to intervene is to corral them all...this is federal, state and even local in terms of government and big corporate relations...
think of drug companies, petroleum, retail, automotive, etc....and their influence, (due to the exorbitant amount of money and power they have accrued...and is it for the benefit of anyone else but themselves? NO...are there negative aspects that "trickle down" and affect those not in that circle....yes!
wake up, stand together, shout loudly and be heard...
I firmly believe, and history supports my view, that human nature will always lead to a few holding power over many. In our current state, the "good ole boys," as you call them, allow enough good to trickle down to placate the masses.
That, combined with the fact that the "good ole boy" network is more able to be penetrated by the lower classes now than at any point in history seems to satisfy the general public.
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You see nothing in my motives other than your own insecurity, ignorance, and lack of morality on this issue. Don't try to impose your own views on me as you have no personal knowledge of my life.
2. I am normally "free market" in most cases. I detest government influence on the markets, except where egregious corruption takes place. Considering I see many regulations (FAS 140, 133, Regulation AB, FD...etc) in the financial area I acknowledge that they have added a lot of transparency. Thus, I do not abhor many types of regulation on the markets where needed.
Once you consider that many rich people are also very powerful, you begin to realize that taking them on using morality isn't always that successful. Langone himself is launching a personal crusade against Spitzer after Spitzer started the whole uproar over Langones butt-buddy Grasso after Grasso's paycheck swelled stupidly.
It's amazing that somehow regulations preventing this silliness hasn't come about isn't it?
Why would institutional investors go against the establishment? Perhaps if all people stopped buying mutual funds, investments in pensions, and insurance companies, and invested on their own, they might feel an impact. However, the same grease that moves the gears of CEOs moves the gears of the fund managers. Meanwhile, people like you downplay it, making it that much more "acceptable" in the publics eyes.
Don't try to belittle me with saying that I am envious, a "prole", insecure, ignorant, or a conspiracy theorist. If you can't fight this with logic and must resort to hyperbole and pathetic strawman or personal attacks just give up. You are outmatched.
1. I never claimed any knowledge of your personal life. I simply based my view on your responses in this thread. And my insecurity? What a joke. Look in the mirror. I bet you've posted your income on this board before, haven't you?
2. Well, you don't seem very free market. I work a great deal with the recent financial regulations as well, and I would expect that anyone who classifies himself as "free market" would agree that any benefits of the transparency gained via recent legislation has been far outweighed by the extreme costs to businesses. You seem to believe the opposite.
That's laughable to claim that all investors would have to quit using institutions before they would yield to investors' opinions regarding exec comp. Even a minor uproar would prod institutions into change. The fact of the matter is, individuals, such as yourself, that find the current exec comp practices so deplorable are in the minority.
Originally posted by: glutenberg
I must know what you do LegendKiller. With a BA in Business-Economics, Accounting, I still have no idea what to pursue. PM me if you want to keep it private (if you want to tell me at all).
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
good for him. I'm sure he worked and studied hard for many years to reach this leadership position. He deserves to reap what he has sown. (apparently that concept doesn't make sense to the OP. The OP has likely not accomplished or achieved much of anything and is bitter and full of resentment that he will never see .1% of this money in his lifetime)
Only a schmuck would equate monetary gain as rewarding achievement. Clearly, your studies as an asshat have served you well.
jC
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Playmaker
He isn't being rewarded for "mediocre performance." He is receiving his due based on a contract signed years ago that was implicitly affirmed by HD's (primarily) institutional owners and, therefore, you.
In the current climate of executive management, given our pseudo-capitalist economy and the involvement of firms like WLRK in the process, contracts such as these, heavily laden with equity based incentive plans, are the only way companies attract top talent. Whether or not they remain top talent when they arrive in the C-level suite should be dealt with in said contact.
If you don't like it, make sure Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, et al. has your money elsewhere.
This reactionary infuriation over a contract after the fact is just proles being proles, and that's why they will remain so.
Please, this is exactly the reason why there is something wrong. These people aren't "top talent", Nardelli didn't even have any relevant experience to the HD job when he came from GE, yet his buddies arraigned for him to have a stellar contract with little to no performance incentives, more give-aways than anything.
The same situation happened with Grasso and such. It's amazing that average workers have to have pretty strict appraisals to get their bonus', yet these guys get a blank check. Regardless of crappy performance or good performance and the only way they get it is because they have the cards stacked in their favor.
Merely accepting it only creates and extends the problem. Amazingly there are multitudes of companies that have CEOs that don't do this type of crap and they are doing pretty dang well.
Finally, I like how you break down morally concious individuals into "proles" and assume that they won't go anywhere. It's a pretty comforting thought pattern to say that anybody who disagrees with you or actually has a moral compass is a loser that isn't nearly as skilled as you are. I am sure that's what Lay/Skilling, Koslowski, Ebbers, and the Rigas' thought too. They were the same types of people that these guys are, greedy, misguided, and idiotic.
First off, your subjective morality has no place in this debate.
His social ability is part of his business acumen. You're ignorant if you believe there isn't a significant social aspect to bonuses/raises for average employees, which is what you appear to insinuate in your pots. One's ability to network has and always will be a major force in moving through the business world. It's an in-born human trait and trying to change it is a fool's errand.
And my comment on proles has nothing to do with morality. I refer to the individuals that find the current executive compensation practices deplorable, yet do nothing more than complain on message board. Not talented enough to play the game and too lazy to attempt to change it, that's what they are.
Funny considering I am not that way. I play the game quite well and am moving up quickly.
Yet, what can anybody do about it? Unless there is legislation demanding that a majority of stock not be proxy voted then nothing will change. There are several other things you can do to limit the problem, but none of them are things individual people can do.
As far as my subjective morality, anybody who realized how horribly the situation is stacked and sees the injustice of it realizes that there are massive problems. However, some try to deny that to justify their own greed. Perhaps it isn't the problem of proles as much a problem of scum bags.
Heh, I'm sure you play the game quite well, but that comment seethes of insecurity and leads one to believe your opinions are based primarily on jealousy.
With this topic in the media so often, it's safe to assume virtually every voter is aware of it. If there was such widespread detest for the current exec comp practices, it would become a hot-button issue on the campaign trail, which is hasn't for either party beyond the impotent lip service of a few pols. And before you bring up all the conspiracy theories of both parties being in bed with corporations, don't forget that re-election trumps all. The majority of this country doesn't want to see each aspect of our economy legislated to hell and controlled by Capitol Hill. I wonder what your political views are given your inclination to legislate, legislate, legislate.
Finally, don't forget the institutional investors that own these companies. If they believed exec compensation was an issue for the general public they would adjust their investing strategies accordingly or risk losing their customer base. And they haven't. Even on this board there seem to be more apathetic towards the issue than enraged about it.
Unfortunately, I feel that Capitol Hill is just as bad and as corrupt. All a part of the same crew...pocketed bureaucrats ...although your arguments are articulate, there is credence to so called "good ole boys"
Litany - Money Moguls -> influence legislation like no other -> influence media -> overcompensation -> are tight with one another, the only way to intervene is to corral them all...this is federal, state and even local in terms of government and big corporate relations...
think of drug companies, petroleum, retail, automotive, etc....and their influence, (due to the exorbitant amount of money and power they have accrued...and is it for the benefit of anyone else but themselves? NO...are there negative aspects that "trickle down" and affect those not in that circle....yes!
wake up, stand together, shout loudly and be heard...
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You see nothing in my motives other than your own insecurity, ignorance, and lack of morality on this issue. Don't try to impose your own views on me as you have no personal knowledge of my life.
2. I am normally "free market" in most cases. I detest government influence on the markets, except where egregious corruption takes place. Considering I see many regulations (FAS 140, 133, Regulation AB, FD...etc) in the financial area I acknowledge that they have added a lot of transparency. Thus, I do not abhor many types of regulation on the markets where needed.
Once you consider that many rich people are also very powerful, you begin to realize that taking them on using morality isn't always that successful. Langone himself is launching a personal crusade against Spitzer after Spitzer started the whole uproar over Langones butt-buddy Grasso after Grasso's paycheck swelled stupidly.
It's amazing that somehow regulations preventing this silliness hasn't come about isn't it?
Why would institutional investors go against the establishment? Perhaps if all people stopped buying mutual funds, investments in pensions, and insurance companies, and invested on their own, they might feel an impact. However, the same grease that moves the gears of CEOs moves the gears of the fund managers. Meanwhile, people like you downplay it, making it that much more "acceptable" in the publics eyes.
Don't try to belittle me with saying that I am envious, a "prole", insecure, ignorant, or a conspiracy theorist. If you can't fight this with logic and must resort to hyperbole and pathetic strawman or personal attacks just give up. You are outmatched.
1. I never claimed any knowledge of your personal life. I simply based my view on your responses in this thread. And my insecurity? What a joke. Look in the mirror. I bet you've posted your income on this board before, haven't you?
2. Well, you don't seem very free market. I work a great deal with the recent financial regulations as well, and I would expect that anyone who classifies himself as "free market" would agree that any benefits of the transparency gained via recent legislation has been far outweighed by the extreme costs to businesses. You seem to believe the opposite.
That's laughable to claim that all investors would have to quit using institutions before they would yield to investors' opinions regarding exec comp. Even a minor uproar would prod institutions into change. The fact of the matter is, individuals, such as yourself, that find the current exec comp practices so deplorable are in the minority.
Your suppositions, ASSumptions and such are quite enough. No, I have never posted my salary, nor would I ever do so. You are the one who bases nothing on logic, nor have you provided anything other than "Hey, I think he deserves it". I have shown why he doesn't and how he still gets it (buddy system). You show no lack of analytical ability nor reasoning, it doesn't surprise me that the only way you can fight my logic is to come up with your simpleton statements. At least I can present facts and back them up. You have shown nothing.
The costs for business is the cost of doing business. Considering that many regulations add essential transparency, it is quite a small price to pay. Further consider that we have the most transparent markets in the world and are rewarded by that with gobs of international investment that lowers the overall cost of funds quite a bit. What I find funny is that you would deplore the cost of a couple tens of millions of dollars to benefit millions of proxy or individual investors in material ways, yet you do not deplore ONE person making 210 million.
Hmm, the good of the many doesn't outweigh the good of the one? Great one sparky, perhaps you should be an ethics professor.
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. You see nothing in my motives other than your own insecurity, ignorance, and lack of morality on this issue. Don't try to impose your own views on me as you have no personal knowledge of my life.
2. I am normally "free market" in most cases. I detest government influence on the markets, except where egregious corruption takes place. Considering I see many regulations (FAS 140, 133, Regulation AB, FD...etc) in the financial area I acknowledge that they have added a lot of transparency. Thus, I do not abhor many types of regulation on the markets where needed.
Once you consider that many rich people are also very powerful, you begin to realize that taking them on using morality isn't always that successful. Langone himself is launching a personal crusade against Spitzer after Spitzer started the whole uproar over Langones butt-buddy Grasso after Grasso's paycheck swelled stupidly.
It's amazing that somehow regulations preventing this silliness hasn't come about isn't it?
Why would institutional investors go against the establishment? Perhaps if all people stopped buying mutual funds, investments in pensions, and insurance companies, and invested on their own, they might feel an impact. However, the same grease that moves the gears of CEOs moves the gears of the fund managers. Meanwhile, people like you downplay it, making it that much more "acceptable" in the publics eyes.
Don't try to belittle me with saying that I am envious, a "prole", insecure, ignorant, or a conspiracy theorist. If you can't fight this with logic and must resort to hyperbole and pathetic strawman or personal attacks just give up. You are outmatched.
1. I never claimed any knowledge of your personal life. I simply based my view on your responses in this thread. And my insecurity? What a joke. Look in the mirror. I bet you've posted your income on this board before, haven't you?
2. Well, you don't seem very free market. I work a great deal with the recent financial regulations as well, and I would expect that anyone who classifies himself as "free market" would agree that any benefits of the transparency gained via recent legislation has been far outweighed by the extreme costs to businesses. You seem to believe the opposite.
That's laughable to claim that all investors would have to quit using institutions before they would yield to investors' opinions regarding exec comp. Even a minor uproar would prod institutions into change. The fact of the matter is, individuals, such as yourself, that find the current exec comp practices so deplorable are in the minority.
Your suppositions, ASSumptions and such are quite enough. No, I have never posted my salary, nor would I ever do so. You are the one who bases nothing on logic, nor have you provided anything other than "Hey, I think he deserves it". I have shown why he doesn't and how he still gets it (buddy system). You show no lack of analytical ability nor reasoning, it doesn't surprise me that the only way you can fight my logic is to come up with your simpleton statements. At least I can present facts and back them up. You have shown nothing.
The costs for business is the cost of doing business. Considering that many regulations add essential transparency, it is quite a small price to pay. Further consider that we have the most transparent markets in the world and are rewarded by that with gobs of international investment that lowers the overall cost of funds quite a bit. What I find funny is that you would deplore the cost of a couple tens of millions of dollars to benefit millions of proxy or individual investors in material ways, yet you do not deplore ONE person making 210 million.
Hmm, the good of the many doesn't outweigh the good of the one? Great one sparky, perhaps you should be an ethics professor.
Haha, it appears I've struck a nerve. You're delusional if you believe your ramblings, lacking coherence at times, have had any substance. You've constantly posted the same points regarding his "severance" as if the board awarded him this money AFTER he had failed to produce results, ignoring the fact that it was based on a prior contract in an attempt to lure him from other opportunities. If you don't recall his contract being based on his reputation as a top C-level exec prospect, you must not have been following the industry (or any industry for that matter) very long.
And I lack evidence? If you want cited sources on how he was a top prospect, how it took a significant contract to secure him, etc. you best look elsewhere. I'm not doing the legwork for you if you don't recall those relatively recent events in business.
Finally, the institutions that approved this hiring generally post a voting summary online or at least make one available for their investors to review. If your average mutual fund holder is too lazy make sure these votes fall in line with his views, too bad. Everyone remembers the idiom about a fool and his money...
Oh, and about the income thing. I posted that unaware if you had or not, but after you denied it I received multiple quotes in my PM box of you doing just that. Thanks for the laugh.